Opinion: Top 5 Furry Media for Conservatives

As my first story here, I'd like to kick things off with a bang by posting about my personal favorite pieces of conservative animated fare. Fitting seeing as political messages are more popular in children's movies now than ever.

5.) The Angry Birds Movie
Directed by Clay Kaytis and Fergal Reilly
Theatrical Release Date - May 11, 2016
The most relevant on the list, this film has the gall to take on a subject that's been of great concern in Western Europe for quite some time now: the migrant crisis. Showcasing both the inherent dangers of unfiltered "tolerance" and anti-nationalist sentiment, Angry Birds is a great watch for anyone who wants not only a fun and witty animated feature but a great social statement that's sure to start a conversation.

4.) My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic
Created by Lauren Faust and Bonnie Zacherle
First Air Date - October 10, 2010
Because I had a hard time finding a lot of content for this list that I could truly say was conservative, it's nice to have a long-winded television series for a change. Now in it's fourth incarnation and running on seven seasons, the show continues to build and explore the world of Equestria. Mainly through the point of view of six girls, one of whom is an apprentice of it's ruler, Princess Celestia.
Not only having an emphasis on the value of friends and family, Friendship also occasionally has it's protagonists defend their homeland from evil illegals and tyrannical, globalist-like dictators. Even the character of Applejack is considered a fan favorite due to her coded Southern herritage.

3.) Robin Hood
Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman
Theatrical Release Date - November 8, 1973
The ultimate libertarian fantasy, Robin Hood is the story of one man's fight to take back what belongs to the taxpayers from an evil government. Easily one of the best films of the seventies in my opinion. Also shows us the importance of valuing religion and morality over the "virtues" of the state.

2.) Zootopia
Directed by Rich Moore and Byron Howard
Theatrical Release Date - Febuary 10, 2016
The film that everyone predicted I was going to place on the list, for better or worse. I've never seen a film better capitulate what bigotry is. But moreover, I've never seen one come out and outright acknowledge that yes, white people can be the victims of racism, quite like this one does. What we have here is a film that wags it's paw at everyone, but especially the self-righteous Social Justice Warrior crowd who loves to pontificate how righteous they are. The guys you see ignoring white genocide while blithering about Syrian refugees. Even the film's surprise villain is the embodiment of race-bating to acquire power.

1.) The Lion King
Directed by Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff
Theatrical Release Date - June 24, 1994
How could this film not be at the top of the list? It's the Huey Lewis and The News of animated movies. So great it's liked by both furries and non-furs alike. From the very opening of the film stating the theme of conservativism to the hyenas showing us, again, a common theme here being the dangers of migrants and a lack of borders, Lion King reminds us of the age-old truth that devotion to family and having pride in one's homeland (pun intended) are not only alright but absolutely necessary to continue The Circle of Life.

Comments

#4) You list the villains and note thay are globalist and so that's why you like to see them as villains. However, it is interesting to think about the following question: Is Celestia NOT a globalist? I mean, she seems to send twilight into other countries to get involved in their affairs all the time, right?

#3) I'm sure the "Ultimate Liberatarian Fantasy" is being able to sit back while the government doesn't do evil things rather than stealing from a thieving one and 'Jumpin' fences, dodgin' trees an' tryin' to get away'.

It's also an interesting take on religion. Make me wonder what your position on the film would be if the friar was an imam instead?

Overall though, I think that while the "political fandom" is interesting, as far as a furry who is also interested in politic (but more the pragmatistic rather than cult of personality aspect of it that's more common these days), I have to say one should be cautious about allowing their political identity to over-write the other aspects. If the only thing that makes you like a movie is that you can put a conservative spin on it (or liberal even), then that says more about the critic than why a film is good.

It's become something of a tribal fetish for conservatives to confuse, or cynical co-opt Libertarianism which, when you think about it, ought to be one of its biggest existential threats. Which is probably the main motive for doing so in the first place. I think it's fucking hilarious(ly ironic) how people like Ike try to spin Robin Hood into being symbolic of either conservatism or libertarianism when, if anything, he's kind of a socialist. What is he all about if not wealth redistribution? I mean, from the rich to the poor. I need to make that clear because conservatives (including and sometimes especially those who have convinced themselves they're libertarians) are all for wealth redistribution when it's from middle and working class taxpayers to big business and/or big government (which they secretly have a jealous boner for, part of the reason they want big business to replace/become government).

Another thing I find deliciously ironic is, usually, it's "loonie liberals" who have to read a political message into virtually all media. I mean it makes sense when it's kinda there, like in Fallout games, maybe to a lesser extent Elder Scrolls, the older Terminator and Aliens films, the more recent superhero films like Nolan's Batman trilogy, etc. But even then, that's not really what most mainstream entertainment is ever about, even when it is, or rather, is trying to seem like it is. So it's equally stupid to get pissed at the "political undertones" of anything from The Incredibles to George Romero's "Of The Dead" series. The only time that even remotely makes sense is when it's something like the Bioshock games that almost has good political messaging but then does relatively little with it because it's too afraid to go there when it sort of already did.

So in that spirit, maybe it's best not to take anything Ike writes in the future too seriously, or to analyze it too closely in the future. His mainstays seem to be a compelling case for nothing, save for the old adage about simple toys for simple minds. You know, like video games, popcorn flicks and furry media.

No, she's a monarchist's wet dream of a monarch. She's what all the past kings and emperors only claimed to be; an actual fucking god. But it's popular entertainment; you're supposed to watch it and see your side. I mean, when it really comes down to it, these kinds of animated movies rarely really have anything too much to say other than "hey, be nice, guys" at heart.

But, anyway, if you actually think the people who created Zootopia or MLP:FiM are really on your side, I mean, come on. Of course, just law of averages, with as many animators and whatnot on that size of projects, I mean, probably there is someone with conservative views, perhaps even "alt-right", working somewhere (though, I mean, probably the guy responsible for background moose's left ear fur rather the director who thanked his husband at the Oscars). But if you're arguing the vast majority of the people working on these examples, and especially the primary creatives actually agree with your point, well, I mean, that's dumb.

If you're arguing that these interpretations can be found, well, I mean, okay, sure, there are lots of critical arguments on both sides (to steal a phrase) that, yes, your subjective take is, if not right, it's not not right, either. Fuck, there's an entire liberal school of thought that says all popular entertainment is by it's very nature conservative, end of discussion. If it was truly liberal, nobody'd actually like it. There's a cottage industry of "left-ist" criticism that is basically "spot the conservative streak in this bit of pop culture". It's not actually very different than what you're doing, except for the opposite reason. So, in that case, godspeed with what you're doing, because, as Zootopia points out, just as knowing racism is bad doesn't stop you from being racist, we're often unaware of our own biases, and should question why we like the things we do.

Also, I mean, seriously, you can have The Angry Birds Movie. We'll just give that to you, no problem.

I think, yes, The Lion King is where you do have the strongest point; a lot of (liberal) criticism of the film does point out that, technically, the hyenas do have genuine grievances against Mufasa and the lions, and if they just hadn't gotten taken in by Scar, could have arguably been the heroes.

The Lion Guard cartoon featured a "good" hyena character in an episode; she pretty much became the breakout character, as far as I can tell (admittedly, I like hyenas, so there may have been, uh, selection bias in running into her so frequently).

Is Celestia a goddess (she's female!)? The whole mythology of My Little Pony is a bit inconsistent and makes little sense. Celestia has been shown on multiple occasions not to be all powerful. And I think one thought is that she and Luna became alicorns because of Starswirl. Remember, she said herself that no pony has been born an alicorn before Flurry Heart. Which really raises questions about Cadence but we'll leave that aside. And if the Hearthswarming legend is true, then Celestia and Luna were not around before the founding of Equestria.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

In most of the world, libertarianism is synonymous with anarchism, and has a left-wing connotation. It only has very recently taken on a right-wing connotation in the US because it was knowingly usurped. From The Betrayal of the American Right:

One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . “Libertari­ans” . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over. . .

If you truly and honestly think MLP, which has protagonists fighting against nazi-like antagonists, helping each other instead of each pulling themselves up the boot straps, and a global, communal economy then I pity you.

1.) Donald Trump helped people during the last two hurricanes we've been having. I don't think that makes him a globalist.

2.) Which FIM villains are "nazi-like"? The original Starlight Glimmer? I'm pretty sure most G4 villains are globalists because they want to rule ALL of equestria and to tear down borders. Didn't you see A Canterlot Wedding?

Name onereal thing the fascist in chief did that wouldn't have been done regardless of who was in office.

and I assure you, My Little Pony whether we're talking about generation 1 or generation 4/FiM is not conservative, little conservatroll. there is not one shred of evidence that it's about conservative.

>conservativism teaches us that each man should pull himself up by the bootstraps on his own , MLP has them helping businesses out to stay alive (Spice Up Your Life as one example)

>conservativism tells us we should be worried about our country first (ie the fascist 'America First' and yes, that is fascist as we can see from history. yet my little pony goes to YakYakistan, the dragonlands, the crystal empire, the breezie village, Saddle Arabia, et al to help them,

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire.

yet the ponies, Pinkie Pie especially, does not adhere to this.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescr iption. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time.

Each pony is seen as an equal in society. While each has their own talents, they work together with those talents and are equals in the problem solving. We've seen this time and time again with Princess Celestia. We've seen this with Princess Twilight Sparkle.

The only 'conservative' would be Princess Luna but given her exile to the moon and her needing to come to grips with modern times it's understandable.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many so r ts of inequality.

We see this smashed all the time in My Little Pony, the episode Sweet and Elite comes to mind.

There is not one single thing about MLP that is conservative and it is disgusting that you would try to link it to an evil ideology. disgusting! shame on you, sir, shame!

1.) Self segregation exists. As seen by the various species not all living together at once.
&
2.) Borders protect people. Hence A Canterlot Wedding Parts 1 & 2.

...Then I think you haven't watched the same show.

And yeah, nothing about conservatism says you can't help someone's struggling business/country out of compassion. Sure, you could argue that charity isn't the most conservative of virtues, but keep in mind that it's the Mane Six solving these problems, not the whole of the Equestrian government itself.

1.) Self segregation exists. As seen by the various species not all living together at once.

it doesn't. because the entire planet is called Equestria. We've also seen cases of this ending.

2.) Borders protect people. Hence A Canterlot Wedding Parts 1 & 2.

borders don't protect people. if borders protected people white people would be in North and South America, Africa or Australia right now. Borders also didn't protect the ponies from the changelings. Good try though. or the parasprites (that's what I'm going to call you from now on btw)

No, that wasn't a deportation since the changelings didn't live in Canterlot in the first place they were invading force. you know, like the US under Bush into Iraq or under Trump into North Korea/Iran.

a good deportation would have been, as a hypothetical example, the native tribes of northern american continent being in alliances and getting all the white people out of northern american. again, as a hypothetical

Right but you still see them congregate in their own towns and cities.

I live in a small town, not by choice. My relatives live in Ireland. Are you really going to tell me we're segregated? are you really this dumb?

They're even intimidated by a zebra.

the same way conservatives and christians were intimidated by healers and non-christians.

but unlike at least evangelicals, the ponies came around on Zecora (oh, fyi, Zecora would have had the role Celestia did--the adviser--if Faust would have been allowed to do so). another fyi? the changelings are good now, they're even friends with the new changeling leader.

They were coming there to live and were kicked out. Like illegal immigrants.

uh..no.

they were coming to feed off the love of the ponies. they were invading force prepared to take over.

Queen Chrysalis: [laughing] Right you are, Princess. And as queen of the changelings, it is up to me to find food for my subjects. Equestria has more love than any place I've ever encountered. My fellow changelings will be able to devour so much of it that we will gain more power than we have ever dreamed of!

Queen Chrysalis: Soon, my changeling army will break through. First, we take Canterlot. And then, all of Equestria!

Like i said, they were like the US.

seeing as they were counter attacks

given that in 2001, Iraq hadn't attacked us. nor did they in 2003. try again parasprite. Iran hasn't attacked us either. nor has north korea.

the individuals in question weren't trying to live there.

the changelings, you retard, weren't trying to live in Canterlot, they were trying to to take it over to have a seemingly endless supply of love at best they were succubi/incubi. not illegal immigrants you nazi.

And as I said, they were illegal immigrants. Chrysalis is like a foreign dictator, not the United States president. You said it yourself, she's doing it for the power, not just resources. One trying to take over and live in Canterlot where she could control the changeling armies and enslave the rest of Equestria.

And a counter attack against say North Korea would not be a literal counter attack but rather a response to a threat. Again, the US aren't the original transgressors if they're getting threats.

1953: Operation Ajax. look it up.
1980-1988: paid the afghani taliban to fight the soviets, trained by the CIA and Saudi Arabia. the fighters included a young lt. named Osama Bin Laden. Al-Qaeda is formed in 1988. In 1989, George HW Bush cuts off ties. 1993, they van bomb the trade center.

2001: 9/11, which the US government had known could happen since 1990, happens. a president elected by the supreme court leads us into a war based on phony intelligence. the same thing would happen in 2003.

There is perhaps a medium between "the US is responsible for all evils" and "the US is always innocent." You can, you know, like the United States and still acknowledge that they've done some pretty shady shit. And, with all respect, if you don't believe the United States has done some pretty shady shit, you don't know a lot about US history. Particularly during the Cold War, given a choice between democratically elected governments that weren't friendly to us and autocratic dictators that were, we sided with the dictators.

I'm pretty sure you didn't bother to look up Acefeline's mention of "Operation Ajax," but perhaps you should. We helped lead a coup against the first democratically elected government in the Middle East—which was in Iran. The government we helped install was eventually overthrown by religious zealots. Americans don't remember this history or don't think it's important, but it's something every Iranian knows by heart. And you do not have to be an Evil American-Hating Liberal™ to at least consider the possibility that perhaps just a wee bit of their hatred of us has to do with, you know, actual shit we did to them.

so, again, he did everything every other president past and future did and will do. so your entire argument is predicated on something that's just common sense.

Also, nice idea insulting entire states after they just experienced major disasters. Very nice of you.

I've never once claimed to be nice. I'm so mean that I've argued that if your state votes against another state receiving disaster aid (as the canadian from calgary currently serving in the US Senate from tex-ass did against new jersey) then your state shouldn't receive disaster aid itself. it's the conservative thing to do after--let tex-ass and floriduh pick themselves up by their own boot straps.

I mean, you guys rail against the coastal elites and their control of media and entertainment ... so you elect a guy from New York with his own TV show. You talk about how corrupt politicians are, and then you elect a business man? Who the fuck do you think are the ones corrupting politicians?

Mexican immigrants?

You elect a guy with no political experience, and, oh, big surprise, he fucking sucks at politics. His own fucking party has the majority in both houses of Congress, and he can't get his legislation passed. His party nominated most of the Supreme Court, but the courts keep striking down his executive orders. For fuck's sake, he's been fucking stonewalled by that bastion of bleeding-heart liberalism, the fucking Pentagon.

The only thing he's done is make dumb little far right nutjobs like you think you actually had some power. So you came out in droves, out of hiding, and everybody got a look at you, and guess what, you're just really big assholes, and nobody likes you because you suck when it comes right down to it.

You know what happened last week? Oklahoma had a special election for a vacant seat in our Congress, and and they voted for a Democrat. First time that district went blue since 1995. We hadn't even come up with the fucking red state/blue state thing yet! The fucking reddest state in the Union, and fucking proud of it. But we finally got a real good look at real conservatism, and, you know what, time for some real ... slightly left of centrism.

It's Oklahoma.

Baby steps.

Anyway, you backed the wrong horse, buddy. Not surprising, since you can't even see what side the fucking horses are on!

Her accent is meant to sound Ozarkian/Southeastern Applachian. I've heard Boozy Badger (who is from Kentucky but for some reason stayed in the shithole that is Pennsylvania) talk and he sounds pretty close to her.

Where are you going to get that left of centrism? From Democrats? The political compass ranked Hilary Clinton as more right wing than Donald Trump at the end(although less authoritarian).https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein were the only ones that were ever left of centre. Pretty much the US is only right-wing; the US idea of left is what others call the right.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

I'd need more words to know where you're going. Are you saying the politics there are messed up because I totally agree. There's no party in South Africa which I feel represents me at all. Some of the guys in Mensa where going to start a libertarian party but while I'm socially libertarian I am against libertarian economics. Most of the parties exist on either racial or religious lines. In the end I voted for the DA only because they are the only ones that can really stand up to the ANC but not because I believe in them.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

I'm not seeing much similarity there. The smear against predators was that they were violent, which directly mirrors the bigotry of Black americans as criminals and muslims as terrorists. You don't hear that sort of accusation against Jews or Israelis.

The media and Islamists smear Israelis as being bloodthristy fascists all the time.

Islamophobia here in the states, on the other hand, is widely blown out of proportion. Outside of a few mean tweets and the president's failed plan to have an indefinite travel ban from certain Islamic countries, it almost doesn't exist.

To tie into my most recent review, I mean, Disney is kind of pro-monarchist ... which I guess is conservative but kind of doesn't really have much to do with the modern left/right paradigm. Both Robin Hood and The Lion King, politically, are about the wrong king is kind of shitty, not, you know, kings are shitty in general. Same for MLP, except gender bent (and with other weird aspects that also don't really belong on the spectrum). I think I just don't like Disney princess movies in general because of personal taste, but it does help that on a certain level I vehemently disagree with their politics. To be clear, I don't think Disney, either the dude or the company, is actually pro-monarchist; but they are often retelling stories that, when originally written, explicitly were.

Reading the comments about Robin Hood as a socialist, and, no, once again he's a monarchist. He's fighting an oppressive government ... to restore power to a guy who is off starting fights with Muslims, which is quite possibly the reason we now have such nice things as ISIS (to be, admittedly, more than a bit historically reductionist). As soon as Prince John is off the throne, he's teaming up with the Muslim murder guy to become part of the aristocracy.

I mean, I still like Robin Hood (and The Lion King, which is also obviously pro-monarchy in that the problem is a bad king rather than the fact that there's a king at all) and think it's one of Disney's better movies, but don't kid yourself. Robin's politics are not our politics. On either side.

"The Angry Birds Movie" is 2016, but it's based on the Angry Birds TV animation and the games going back to ... well, I'm too lazy to look it up, but it goes back pretty far. And it's originally Finnish. Is Finland worried about immigration?

"Robin Hood", at least the 1973 Disney movie, isn't as much about stealing from the rich and giving to the poor as it's about taking back the money that was stolen from the poor in the first place through unethical taxation and returning it to them. Disney got around the issue of condoning stealing that way.

In real history, Richard left England to go Crusading and left John in charge of England, with both knowing that John would have to increase taxes to send enough money to Richard to pay for the Crusading, while keeping enough to maintain the government (and the royal court) in England. (Geoffrey, their middle brother, was made Duke of Normandy, which kept him out of England so he never became part of the folk tales.)

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

It's hard to see that as anything other than deliberately misunderstanding my position. I would be perfectly happy with conservative posts. What I am not happy about is allowing obvious troll posts.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

But you could figure out its a troll since the article is stretching to ridiculous levels to try and justify itself, not surprising since it's giving the opposite message of many shows. No history; the user comments without an account and only made one for this rather suspicious article. The previous comments attributed to that name were nearly all trolling if I recall.

Sure, they could be serious but that just seems incredibly unlikely.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Sure, but I'd rather let the readers judge that, which they have in this case. I could always make an assessment on that, but then there would be bias accusations, by I would have assumed individuals such as yourself. But I guess I'm not a smart enough cookie to assume that the free speech advocate would have had my back on this one.

Fine, I won't publish anything by this person in the future, but know it was your decision since you're the only one smart enough to make them.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

No, I'm saying who defines what is and is not trolling? You have read the article you posted here, correct?

The person who made this article did not post 700 copies of this article, they did not spam it. They posed one article, which wasn't well received.

Is is because it wasn't well received that you feel comfortable calling it "trolling"? If it was more popular would you find difficulty doing that? Then is the speech/trolling line defined by popularity?

At least Crossafflition was giving your the benefit of the doubt of being consistent with your views. I guess we gave you too much credit.

You might want to go back and check again where I listed things I do not consider protected speech. It's got nothing to do with popularity. I don't believe the author here honestly believes this. And I think this piece was just done to generate drama, the same as his whole thing about taking Judy on a date to McDonalds or whatever that other conversation was about.

That is very different to Patch, who I disagree with but I'm sure he believes what he says. It's also different to when I wrote a piece arguing against Phil Elmore (https://www.flayrah.com/6417/opinion-id-trade-my-man-card-furry-conbadge) who I also think he believes what he said, even though I disagree with all of it. Ike doesn't look like he believes anything.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Right, but there's been plenty of evidence that suggests that the whole group of Alt-Furry exists to, as you say, troll. Yet now you're like, well this guy is a troll. So I'm trying to figure out where you believe the line of troll vs non-troll is?

Because to most of DogPatch's readership the entire alt-furry is a troll group who are doing it not for political reasons but because it'll cause adverse reactions.

So who is defining what behavior is trolling or what are legitimate beliefs?

There is? I'm not following what they do so I have no idea. However what I have seen reported lately seems less like trolling and more like actual beliefs. For example he did one on some guy who was at one of these alt-right rallies. That's quite a step to take for the sake of trolling. And why would they talk as though they believed it in private Discord channels as the logs apparently show? Also, if people believe the whole group is trolling then why does all the discussion about altfurry focus on politics and not trolling?

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

On those within the alt-right being trolls and not believing the things they actually say look no further than this quote from an article released earlier this year:

@GWSSDelta sees the alt-right as accepting of groups neglected by traditional conservatism, including LGBT people, women and, of course, bronies. When questioned about the contradictions in some of his ideas—it seems quite a leap to find inspiration for a "furred reich" in My Little Pony, a children's cartoon which preaches that "friendship is magic,"—@GWSSDelta wrote that the more sinister jokes made by alt-bronies about gas chambers are "all in good jest," in the vein of outrage-heavy 4chan humor.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/4xap8w/pony-nationalism-and-the-furred-reich-inside-the-alt-furrys-online-zoo

As far as the retconning you are doing on your believe that your article didn't protect "troll speech" or anything like that; here is your statements from your article on deception and speech:

Deliberate falsehoods
Free speech does not protect deliberate falsehoods or lies. Free speech is there to allow the exchange of ideas and deliberately putting out incorrect information undermines the goal of those discussion. It is very important for the falsehood to be deliberate though. This is partially due to the possibility of having many different but valid views of the same thing, depending on what you value and how you weigh different types of evidence (although that does not mean that there are not incorrect views) but also because a falsehood due to ignorance is not the same as a malicious falsehood.

This shouldn't be controversial, no one says that a child lied when they give the wrong answer on a test. The child simply did not know and gave what they believed to be correct with no bad faith. Answers can even change as we learn more about the world. This also illustrates one problem with shutting down discussions. If we view those with detestable views the same way as we view the child, we can recognise that, just as banning the child from answering or kicking them out of the class, the only way to get a better answer is through engagement and education.

A further complication is that we do not always view lying to people as wrong. Some people think it is good to lie to children about the existence of Father Christmas or Santa Claus and it is necessary to lie to prepare a surprise party. In those cases you could maintain that there is no malicious intent so those lies are acceptable but that would still leave the door open for the classic "doing the wrong thing for the right reasons" paternalism. I am not going to try and follow those thoughts to a conclusion at this point but merely reiterate that as long as there is no deliberate deception, even speech which is objectively wrong at that point in time would still be protected as free speech.

No where in this section do you indicate the word 'trolling' specifically or anything regarding trolling. You have yet to provide me evidence on how this article, or an of Ike's comments fall under this very specific definition of trolling if that is what you consider this. As outlandish as the guy's beliefs are, who are your to judge that they aren't really his? And this crap is far more harmless than the kind of trolling alt-furries have done. Like sending cease and desist letters to someone's house they had no way to legally enforce.

So to me it seems like I'm the one being trolled here and that your very article was trolling since, when your theories are put into practice you seem to be backpedaling quite hard. Should I be questioning on whether to allow you to post any more articles here based on that? Since it appears to be deceitful on your actual feeling on free speech?

See, this is what I just don't understand. In literally the same reply you are both trying to convince me that this whole altfurry thing is just a joke and people trolling and that you can't know if Ike, posting basically some weird altfurry type thing, is being serious or trolling.

And then you can actually quote the part of my essay which would object to trolling but apparently don't agree because it doesn't literally include the word trolling? Do you really expect me to spell out every single exception? If someone is trolling and doesn't actually hold that belief then they are lying about what they say they believe and since trolling is only done to cause a disruption it is with malicious intent. It is about as clear cut at fitting this exception as you can get.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

No. I think one is a person's legitimate political beliefs and the other is just done for their amusement and to upset others.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Right: So you think that it's important we listen to and not stifle fascists/white supremacists because they really BELIEVE the shit they're spewing, but we should denigrate people causing at most a mild annoyance by having fun online?

I think it's important to engage with and not suppress people's beliefs but when people are lying just to cause disruptions to a community then that is not good.

I am also wondering how much Sonious though about altfurry being trolling. You say here that trolling is fine and he says that altfurry is trolling but I was under the impression you were in favour of removing all the altfurs. Now you're saying that's just a mild annoyance?

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Meh. I'm not particularly campaigning for AltFurs to be removed from here or FA (which I don't use anyway). I find it extremely amusing that people keep pouring gasoline into their snake holes but I'm confident in at least the online furry communities I'm part of to keep them from overrunning the place.

This article is what I'm calling a mild annoyance. As for AltFurry, well, the thing about them is, they're both trolls and people with sincere "beliefs".

If I'm trolling on this website, the site owners would have every right in the world not to publish my content. It's their site, their rules. It's intentionally meant to provoke, nothing more nothing less.

They'd still have the right to ban someone who's racist as well but I'd argue that the troll has more of a reason to be banned because they're not even trying to bring anything of value to the conversation. White supremacists will only get worse if you stifle their speech like we saw in Charlottesville, but trolls will more likely move on.

So, you just admitted you were intending to provoke with this article:

If I'm trolling on this website, the site owners would have every right in the world not to publish my content. It's their site, their rules. It's intentionally meant to provoke, nothing more nothing less.

Well the goal of Flayrah is to inform, not to provoke, so well, let's just say this is your last article (if I can help it). I thought your intent was to inform furries of movies you felt had conservative messages. Poorly made arguments in some cases, but arguments none the less.

Guess that was not the case. Provoking is trolling behavior. Which means Growlith's argument, and your own here was accurate.

This is my legitimate opinion. I am here to give interpretations, nothing more and nothing less.

And no, I did not say that THIS POST was meant to provoke. I was talking about the hypothetical instance in-which I was trolling where Rawuken Arcanine would be in the right saying that I have less of a good reason to post as opposed to a white supremacist who legitimately believes in what they're saying while being respectful.

Genocide, ethnic cleansing, racial superiority, and antisemitism is a legitimate political belief.

Saying there are conservative beliefs hidden in films is just to upset others.

Both "stances" are similarly legitimate and intellectually honest - that is to say, none at all. Any unbiased analysis of both arguments shows - and has shown - that they are devoid of supporting facts and solely lead to varying degrees of harm.

You cannot say that one argument made in bad faith is to be protected because of free speech, then turn around and say that this other argument made in bad faith should not be protected, not without proving yourself to be a hypocrite.

The only difference between saying that Zootopia is really about how white people suffer racism, and saying stuff in support of white nationalism or white supremacy? We have already had the long discussion about white nationalism and why it is harmful.

Both arguments deserve no platform or consideration because they are devoid of any value or merit, "legitimately held opinion" or not.

Yet you have set yourself as an arbiter of what is a legitimately held opinion. This isn't what you have argued for, and it is part of what many of us pointed out in your giant essay as being wrongheaded, when you weren't already being inconsistent with your interpretation, or so desperate to protect your definition of free speech that you trampled all over freedom of association.

You talk a lot and have big words, but that doesn't mean you have a good argument or point.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

I haven't indirectly called him a troll either. I have just said I completely disagree with him. I would much prefer you do not make inferences about what I believe as more often than not people get inferences about others wrong. People even get things wrong when the literal words they read say the opposite. Even Sonious has experienced the same thing:
"That odd time when someone accuses you of being supporting antisemitism when making a video against neo-nazi rallies...?"

I probably shouldn't have been insulting him but it is still far kinder than he has been to me.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Patch let his frustrations get the better of him when arguing with Rakuen, and while I would suggest he moderate his words in the future, cannot condemn them.

Rakuen argues for "Freedom from Consequence", but cannot escape it. The consequence for the arguments he presents - and then promptly ignores when he feels like it - as well as the manner in which he offers his point of view has led to a consequence he does not like.

I don't understand the confusion. I very clearly said free speech doesn't apply to deliberate lies. I really think this guy is trolling (based on everything he said before) and trolling is, almost by definition, lying. If you thought I would be in favour of trolling then you misunderstood what I was saying.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

"Saints may always tell the truth, but for mortals living means lying. We lie to protect our privacy (“No, I don't live around here”); to avoid hurt feelings (“Friday is my study night”); to make others feel better (“Gee you've gotten skinny”); to avoid recriminations (“I only lost $10 at poker”); to prevent grief (“The doc says you're getting better”); to maintain domestic tranquility (“She's just a friend”); to avoid social stigma (“I just haven't met the right woman”); for career advancement (“I'm sooo lucky to have a smart boss like you”); to avoid being lonely (“I love opera”); to eliminate a rival (“He has a boyfriend”); to achieve an objective (“But I love you so much”); to defeat an objective (“I'm allergic to latex”); to make an exit (“It's not you, it's me”); to delay the inevitable (“The check is in the mail”); to communicate displeasure (“There's nothing wrong”); to get someone off your back (“I'll call you about lunch”); to escape a nudnik (“My mother's on the other line”); to namedrop (“We go way back”); to set up a surprise party (“I need help moving the piano”); to buy time (“I'm on my way”); to keep up appearances (“We're not talking divorce”); to avoid taking out the trash (“My back hurts”); to duck an obligation (“I've got a headache”); to maintain a public image (“I go to church every Sunday”); to make a point (“Ich bin ein Berliner”); to save face (“I had too much to drink”); to humor (“Correct as usual, King Friday”); to avoid embarrassment (“That wasn't me”); to curry favor (“I've read all your books”); to get a clerkship (“You're the greatest living jurist”); to save a dollar (“I gave at the office”); or to maintain innocence (“There are eight tiny reindeer on the rooftop”).

...It doesn't matter whether we think that such lies are despicable or cause more harm than good. An important aspect of personal autonomy is the right to shape one's public and private persona by choosing when to tell the truth about oneself, when to conceal and when to deceive. Of course, lies are often disbelieved or discovered, and that too is part of the pull and tug of social intercourse. But it's critical to leave such interactions in private hands, so that we can make choices about who we are.

How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if lying is not an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its own sake, its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to truthful self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First Amendment. Americans tell somewhere between two and fifty lies each day. If all untruthful speech is unprotected, as the dissenters claim, we could all be made into criminals, depending on which lies those making the laws find offensive. And we would have to censor our speech to avoid the risk of prosecution for saying something that turns out to be false. The First Amendment does not tolerate giving the government such power."

I mean, based on your Twitter account, you gestated your article for a month, the actual writing lasted about a week, and there was a lengthy editing process. And, yet, the first time what everyone assumed was your stance is put to the test, you're all like "I didn't mean that." Well, maybe in that month long process, you could have written a bit clearer? As a wise man once said, "English, motherfucker, do you speak it?"

Yes, we thought you were in favor of trolling because that's what you said. Fuck what you meant. If your gonna harp on about free speech, you might wanna learn to SPEAK.

And this is exactly what we all mean when we say "free speech has consequences." It's not a fucking ethical or philosophical discussion; it's a fucking fact of reality! When you say things, people respond to what is said. We call those responses "consequences". So you need to be a little more careful with what you SAY.

I mean, fuck, one long term contributor has already dropped out; THAT'S A CONSEQUENCE. You put in Sonious in a crisis of conscience because of what he thought your point was; THAT'S A CONSEQUENCE. You have me shouting at you in the comments again; THAT'S A CONSEQUENCE. Flayrah ran a pro-alt right article; THAT'S A CONSEQUENCE. If you "meant" to say something different, well, nobody gives a fuck, if you aren't able to actually convey that with what you say.

You've told me you think you're a good person; fucking who cares. Maybe you'd actually be a better person if you actually worried you were the bad guy. Because I worry I'm the bad guy all the fucking time, Rakuen.

So, maybe, while you're thinking, think about that. Or at least learn to write better, Jesus.

Well, give a duck a chance to prove it can fly, or show that it's a lame duck. I'd rather let them see for themselves they are the later. That way in the end they got no one to blame but themselves instead of blaming the environment or circumstance.

Trust me when I say that I will consider reflecting on lessons learned here and consider some side bar items. There's really know hard and fast rules on who posts and who doesn't, so I go into it with the same naivety as anyone else.

Things to consider would be comment behavior and ratings, not allowing one's first piece to be opinion oriented, and other things like that.

Still, if this was not posted the contradiction from Rauken would not have been highlighted, and I would be lying if I didn't say that his article didn't have any influence on this one going up.

I'm glad there are going to be changes to the editorial process after this--Rakuen is right that this is a trolling post from someone we already knew was a troll. It's not "throwing you under the bus" to point that out, especially when we've already had the consequence of driving off people the community here actually likes. Did you really just post this to make a gotcha! point to Rakuen?

I believe in making lemonade out of lemons. And if Lamar and Patch were groaning at the article Rauken made, then they should be happy that this article went up and showed that even Rauken with his preaching has limits.

Sort of a proof in the pudding moment.

But yes, given the op's statement in this comment section regarding provoking, at this time I agree with Rauken that this is merely a trolling post and that was its intention. I had no way to really prove intent beforehand, though poorly received comments beforehand could have been considered.

Sure, perhaps I could've been clearer somehow but perhaps tell me how. When I write "I believe in x but there are exceptions such as in the case of y" and then people say "Why do you not agree with when this person did y" I am kinda at a loss. This article is literally one of the things I said was a problem and I'm not sure how that was not clear.

To me, it seems like people are just skimming, ignoring the nuances I put out there and then making up their own conclusions. Like when you write "Yes, we thought you were in favor of trolling because that's what you said." When did I ever say that? What gave you that idea? I don't mean in some nebulous way; I mean can you actually show me any specific words that support that? Because if something is not in my words then don't attribute that to me because I probably did not mean that.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

It's not that I'm blaming you completely for this mess; but a "haha, whoops, this one's kind of on me, sorry guys" every once in a while wouldn't irrevocably damage our opinion of you.

I mean, fuck, Lamar may have stomped off, but she's the one who posted this; I mean, she's calling out the alt-right by name, she really didn't think there was going to be a reaction? I mean, we're talking about fascists (among other things); these are not people known for turning the other cheek.

And you had the fucking high ground, Rakuen. All you had to do was say, "Well, I hoped it wouldn't come to this, and I of course disagree with what he's saying, but insist on his right to say it." And we'd of all been, like, "grumble, grumble, well, at least he's got his principles, grumble, grumble." But then you didn't.

Now I'm the one defending the guy's right to say it, because he may be a douche-bag, and he may be trying to provoke us, but, hey, guys, he hasn't fucking changed his stance on the fact that he thinks these goddamn cartoons, God bless his heart, are really what he wants them to be.

And I'll do it again, because fuck Nazis, God bless motherfucking America, and we're still standing!

This is round one, maggot! This fight isn't over!

And as long as you're on team Flayrah and also team Not Fucking Nazis, I'm going to need you to shape up, take responsibility and get fucking better! Because this is a fucking team, and I've got your back, but I'm not confident you've got mine! Now are you fucking with me?

Note: Giving a shit about whether God blesses motherfucking America is optional to be a part of team Flayrah, of course.

What you haven't addressed here is the question I was really interested in. Again you make it seem like suddenly I changed my stance and that's why you're upset but I never changed my stance. This is still the same principle. I have to keep saying this because it's a major sticking point for me. This article literally falls under one of the exceptions where I said free speech does not provide protection.

I am following my principles and I explicitly stated those principles earlier which is why I do not understand why you and others are saying I changed them. You can literally go back and read it. It was even quoted in the comments here. Apparently people did not get that message when reading. Okay. But now the question is why.

To me, my principles didn't change and they are pretty clearly stated. You are one who thinks my being against a troll article is somehow in conflict with the position I previously stated. ("Yes, we thought you were in favor of trolling because that's what you said. Fuck what you meant.") I just want to know why. What makes you think that? Obviously you are processing what I said in a totally different way to what I expected and unless you tell me how I can't tell why people have misinterpreted what, to me, was plainly stated. Do the same words not mean the same thing to all of us?

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

You did change your stance, I edited the thing you alleged I did not read. Here is your stance from the article:

Comics such as that fail to distinguish between free speech, which is a universal human right, and the first amendment, which is specifically limited to government interference but also only applies to the US. While many furry sites are hosted in the US and fall under US law, that does not apply to all of them and country-specific law is of limited use when discussing the broader implications of free speech for an international community such as the furry fandom.

Furthermore although government interference in free speech is something to guard against so are the chilling effects of societal sanctions. In fact, in his 1859 work On Liberty, which is the major work defining and defending free speech, John Stuart Mill expressed great concern about the threat to free speech from society as well as from government.

One has to wonder how they conceive of free speech. The point of free speech is to provide protection from consequences in the interest of expanding ideas and opinions available for public consumption. If you decouple free speech from whether or not there are consequences— well, down that path madness lies.

When asked "How did you know this guy was a troll and that this post was intended to troll?" You said:

You might want to go back and check again where I listed things I do not consider protected speech. It's got nothing to do with popularity. I don't believe the author here honestly believes this. And I think this piece was just done to generate drama, the same as his whole thing about taking Judy on a date to McDonalds or whatever that other conversation was about.

So according to the bolded words from your articles you are saying: "He should have the right to post the article since it's an idea he has regardless of what he has said before hand. Because what he said before should be of no consequence to whether his articles get published."

In the second set of bolded words you are saying: "Because he made some strange joke about McDonalds he's obviously a troll and therefore should not have been allowed to have had this article published."

You're speaking out both sides. Which is it man? Should we judge a person by their behavior and words or should we NOT judge them by that and start with a clean slate at each utterance?

It's interesting that you completely ignore context and selectively quote. For example, the very next paragraph says.

Having said that, I will also acknowledge that there are some consequences which can occur despite free speech. If you exercise your free speech then there may be societal consequences such as lowering people's opinion of you and perhaps limiting future opportunities. However, such consequences should not be as a result of society trying to punish that person for their speech, excepting in cases where such speech were to violate specific rules of a particular site, to use an example most relevant for the furry fandom.

The consequences spoken of in the part you quoted are those meant to suppress or punish the expression of different viewpoints, for example by banning certain discussions, firing people for holding different views and so on. Then I continued in the next paragraph to talk about the sort of consequences it does not cover, things like affecting people's reputation or making people not want to have drinks with them. I never said it's as though everything happens in a vacuum with nothing affecting anything else.

Furthermore this was all, as you highlighted, to provide "protection from consequences in the interest of expanding ideas and opinions available for public consumption." Strangely enough you again ignore that later, when discussing restrictions on free speech, I said, "The restrictions I will talk about here are more general; they are cases where, in principle, free speech does not apply and are generally where, to my mind, the actions themselves would serve to undermine free speech."

Trolling does not expand the ideas or opinions for public consumption because they are not real ideas or opinions. They are things that said just to create a reaction and which are not actually believed by the speaker. They are false and, as I already said earlier, knowingly false statements are not protected by free speech as they undermine the purpose of free speech.

But to summarise, yes you can judge people by their behaviour and words. I never said you couldn't. I said in general one should not restrict speech because you disagree with it. But that was to apply to genuine ideas and opinions while the case in question here is about trolling, not true beliefs. And yes, you can tell that from other comments.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Honestly, Rakuen, when people state their principles and then list exceptions, it sounds like they're only heading off complaints beforehand. If you write like the tiny text at the bottom of a commercial that everybody is supposed to ignore, don't be surprised when everybody ignores it.

I mean, let's talk about cub porn; I don't tolerate cub porn on general principles, so I don't tolerate cub porn. There's not exceptions; it's a principle. That's how principles work. You say you believe in free speech on general principle, I assume you believe in free speech.

Saying you have exceptions to your principles and clearly stated those exceptions doesn't mean you stuck to your principles, Rakuen. It means you don't have principles.

Do the same words not mean the same thing to all of us?

No.

For instance, obviously our definition of the word "principles" differs.

I don't really want to quibble over your terminology here but the simple fact is, my position was more complex and nuanced than you allowed for. Which just means that you knowingly misrepresented my position and instead constructed some straw man to compare me with. We cannot have a proper discussion if you are going to deliberately ignore half of what I say.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

I don't think this article was written in good faith or with honest intent. Every "conservative" message listed here is quite a stretch, often counter to the actual messages intended to be conveyed. None of the arguments stand up to scrutiny, and the most plausible 'conservative' interpretations are eliminated by Occam's Razor and better-fitting alternatives.

The author's goal here is to upset and inflame, but really I just end up disappointed that Flayrah published this.

I have faith that the karma system would speak for itself. I personally gave it a 2.

It didn't require too much editing and was at least somewhat coherent, but yeah the political arguments were a stretch, and were the "front and center" items. Which means that the furry aspect of the story is back-seated to the political fandom lens.

There are certainly more depth one could go into indicating the conservatives principals presented in films. But I can tell you Zootopia should have been lower, or not existent on the list. I watched Zootopia with a more conservative audience (family, not furry) and I can tell you they seemed to shut down after the whole "A bunny can call another bunny cute, but when others do it..." scene. Which yeah, "cute" was a bit of a stretch to implant as an offensive slur and felt very forced.

The Zootopia staff was not being as coded as they thought they were apparently. The "don't touch a sheep's wool", and "articulate fella/high praise" were better done as I didn't realize they were common complaints until after the movie when others were discussing it.

Yeah, I have to agree with you there, its obviously trolling, if the author was serious, I'm sure there are a lot better examples out there, or arguments they could have made, but a lot of those examples are really quite a stretch, and seem to be deliberately worded to provoke.
Does Flayrah use any curation in what they feature? or is there any admin approval system? I am really surprised Flayrah published this, not for any political reason, but because its obviously a lame trolling attempt.

Articles are approved before publication. You can see above where me and Sonious talk about that since he's one of the editors.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

I see.
In my personal opinion, this opinion piece seems like an attempt to troll.
If I were an editor, which I`m not cause I`m just a simple woozle, I would maybe not publish this, because if a new person were to come to my site and see this article, this possible troll attempt may reflect on my site, and the quality of our content. So I would have said "NAH, let`s post an article about the group of furries who were recently on a British game show, or a cute photo reel from a recent con, or maybe an article on the number of relatively positive media coverage on the Furry Fandom lately and why that maybe is. Perhaps more articles of a positive and non political leaning may encourage more contributors of similar positive content?"

Or allow someone to post a diatribe on free speech only to throw them under the bus later by practicing the very crap I just preached about; if I were a Growlithe.

I was on the fence on posting this. I posted it and then another article in rapid succession for a reason. And yes, I did not post it to the twitter account, but did the article afterward because I felt its quality lacking.

But I'm glad I did now that it has revealed that the fandom's "savior of free speech" is a hypocrite who will throw the editors under the bus if something isn't popular. It is something I personally will not be letting go anytime soon.

Seriously? A troll makes a troll account and posts a troll story which gets the message of probably every item wrong (or at least the ones I know). This is quite disappointing.

Edit: I see this was never published on the Flayrah Twitter. I wonder if that was an oversight or deliberate.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Man, I'm not a conservative and I could do a better job than this. What about Ratatouille, which pulls off the hat trick of arguing for populism over elitism while still recognizing individual greatness (and for a bonus, turns a government regulator into a minor villain for comic effect)? Heck, give me a little time and I could construct a case for The Secret of NIMH, with its titular villainous government agency and a plot driven strongly by family values. (Arguably most children's cartoons, including furry ones, are pretty focused on the family, although nearly always broken families because drama. Hell, I could even drag in Brandon Morse's argument for the "My Little Pony" episode "The Cutie Map" as being a none-too-subtle attack on "social Marxism."

But no, we get an argument for Robin Hood, a story which is literally about forced redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, as conservative. And the case for MLP? "Something something globalists" and "Applejack has a Southern drawl so conservative." Yeah, that's some deep thinkin' goin' on there, pardner. This is just "here's popular furry stuff, and I'm going to claim it's conservative because it'll make liberals angry!"

(Granted, "because it'll make liberals angry" is pretty much the post-Obama "conservative" philosophy in a nutshell. Barry Goldwater must be spinning in his grave fast enough to power Phoenix for a year.)

Barry Goldwater started the slide by courting the racist vote during the Republican Primary, and used it to defeat Rockefeller. He might have complained about "those preachers" getting control of the Republican Party, but he's the one who brought them to the table.

Re: the side note, thank you! (I suspect neither "Tow" nor Kismet, the novel it's a prequel to, would make a list of Ike's favorite furry stories, although he does not come across as the literary type to start with...)

"Ratatouille, which pulls off the hat trick of arguing for populism over elitism while still recognizing individual greatness (and for a bonus, turns a government regulator into a minor villain for comic effect)"

The argument can be made, but I don't see populism v elitism a conservative argument. You could say that the movie strives to recognize individual greatness, but I've always seen the idea that "greatness can come from any origin and we should encourage everyone" to be a more Liberal than Conservative stance. The health inspector being villainized for doing his job does sound like a conservative argument, I'll grant you that ;) But even then, the movie shows the health inspector being a bored professional for the little screentime we have of him - and frankly, wholly in the right when it comes to hordes of rats in the kitchen, enough to kidnap him.

I don't see those arguments standing.

" The Secret of NIMH, with its titular villainous government agency and a plot driven strongly by family values."

In my recollection (I've never seen the movie but read the book), NIMH was not any more villainous than the lawnmower. An argument about ethics can be made in terms of their research, but there's not enough information there to judge such, and desiring to track down a test species with unknown mutations and remove them from the local environment is understandable.

"Family Values" has been co-opted by the Right, but I'll never let conservatives think they own it outright and could never consider it being proof of a conservative message.

I can provide a suggestion of the opposite - that the local community came together to offer assistance in a time of need. I don't think it is a strong argument for a Liberal message, but certainly one as strong or stronger than the Conservative messages you identified.

Anyhow, as I said, in good clean fun. I don't think that either movies mentioned could be taken as Liberal or Conservative and trying to assert a political message in them is a disservice to the films.

Well, it was a somewhat off the cuff comment on my part rather than a concerted effort to construct a conservative reading of the works. :) It's just that the works the OP chose are either basically non-political (Angry Birds? Really?) or dip into social commentary that would be fairly hard to characterize as conservative. Zootopia is obvious, of course, but MLP:FiM's overall thematic messages certainly don't seem to be ones that would resonate with the altfurry crowd (even though in my experience Bronies seem to oddly trend to the right politically compared to furries). And for God's sake, if you're really looking for a political message in The Lion King, the hyenas were literally goose-stepping around Scar.

(I actually do have the impression that Brad Bird tilts toward the libertarian/conservative side of the political spectrum and that you can see that reflected across some of his work, although more in The Incredibles and Tomorrowland than Ratatouille.)

There are, possibly, arguments that can be made. But I have little tolerance for ones argued in bad faith, even if the person truly believes it.

I'm reminded of when I banned Scorch from FA's IRC channel for de-facto trolling with his free energy nuttery. He held is as an earnest belief, but every argument for it was rooted in bad faith, and in the end he got so disruptive with it that I removed him from the channel.

Well, if nothing else "The Angry Birds Movie" certainly fits the intellectual level of the current political discourse in the West. How is "Ted 2" absent from the list though? It's all about an individual fighting for personal rights which don't make a whole lot of sense in the context, teaches the necessity of self-defense and the danger of drugs, and is rude and cynical like all movies for Real Men need to be. Feels pretty close to the goals of current conservatives to me.

Well, actually, yes, the movie does kind of address biology by having a character literally say "BI-O-LOG-Y" followed by being immediately called out on it and then the next ten minutes of the movie are an extended montage of how she was wrong morally followed by the revelation she was wrong factually.

But I agree that the point of using animals as a metaphor for race is fraught with danger is a, well, point, just maybe not the best example.

Why don't you go back to defending dindus, Dawn Bellwether? Maybe those dead thugs you love so much will come back to life if you keep praying. After all, Mike Brown is a big boy, he could dig himself out of his own grave!

Yeah. Unlike you I'm a true Star Wars and MLP fan as you already know. I love scifi and furry content hence why I came here. However, with people such as this dude leaving, I feel I might be making some serious progress in bettering the website without even trying: https://twitter.com/jayblanc/status/909583439975845889

The show acknowledges that borders are necessary just like it does gender roles.

There's no way you're actually this dumb. You're an SJW troll. You're the type to get angry over Pewdiepie using the N word as a joke. You're the villains of FIM, dummy. You're trying to censor others and justify violence.

You are the antithesis of the entertainment you enjoy! The Mane Six would be OK with Pewdiepie and would disavow those who "punch Nazis".

You people demonstrate time and time again that you're all jealous of me and secretly wish you were me. Why else would you be fighting with me on this? It's because you're insecure and you know that I'm right. But do no take negativity from this. As said earlier, you could be as great as I am if you tried. You could get women begging at your feet like I do, if you tried.

But with all that aside, I hope for the best for all of you. I see you all still have a lot to learn. So while I'm sipping lemonade and meditating, living the good life, you'll still be able to follow in my footsteps and eventually achieve the same thing.

Blessed be all of you, and I do legitimately hope that you're able to get Jay Blanc back on for good measure.

Well to be fair, Cross is a lefty (by US standards, not EU standards) who lives in rural Oklahoma (one of our reddest states in the Union). Being snarky to just about everyone on the internet is probably the only thing keeping him from crippling opioid addition. That and watching movies.

Which I guess is better then some furries who fall between the numbers 1 and 3 who are both snarky to everyone and has a crippling drug addiction regardless.

I don't know if this is a legitimate article or a trolling article, but my adrenal glands just went down, scratch that, my adrenal glands were just ripped out of me and shoved to far down my throat that when i sing the people around me become panicked.

Well, there's not much of an article backlog at the moment, and suddenly there were several authors who offered heavier topics than usual, all within a short period of time. I'm sure they each had their own reasons; just weird timing is all. Got anything lighter to discuss? Throw something our way!

Okay, so, mid-morning insomnia YouTube trolling, and, uh, boom. If you don't really like droning "video essays" about movies, well, the point gets made almost a minute in when the word "conservative" literally gets plastered across The Lion King.

What I'm trying to say is, no, Ike was not right (I mean, other than political spectrum-y); these movies weren't made, either for or by, racists and/or fascists. On the other hand, I'm kind of disappointed in a lot of the commenters defending fucking Robin Hood and The Lion King as bastions of liberalism, because, Jesus fuck, they're not. One's the story of an oppressed people trying to overthrow the oppressive system that is designed to marginalize them, and they're the bad guys; the other is the story of the ultimate sovereign citizen jerk off fantasy.

That's part of the reason why Zootopia is so special (and why it's really the only one, besides maybe MLP:FiM that is just completely off base); I mean, before Zootopia the strongest political message Disney's animated canon had produced was "in a monarchy, lines of succession must be maintained at all costs" which is both "conservative" in the way the video describes ... and also so divorced from actual real world politics as to be completely safe and inoffensive enough market to almost anyone (and is also a message that Disney also retreated right the fuck back to in their very next movie, by the way).

Also would like to point out that, while we're all worried about whether or not Simba and Nala are related, the movie explicitly states that the decision that they will be married one day has already been made for them while they were still cubs. And then goes on to not only not challenge this decision, but actually have it be the correct decision. The incest thing is the result of a plot hole; arranged marriage is the fucking plot.

I mean, fuck Ike, but don't just blindly assume because you like something, it's politics are your politics.

Ike says he's a True Star Wars fan. So then he must know the religion of The Force is really Space Islam right? : )
If he thinks he's a Jedi that kinda makes him a Space Muslim. :o
Or is it Star Muslim??